irotsoma

Rust crates manifest file requires a license be set to be hosted on crates.io and the example manifest file uses:

[package] 
license = "MIT OR Apache-2.0"

Something like the Java’s jar manifest doesn’t have a predefined license property for interpreters to parse. Maven has a property, but it’s not required.

Yes, but punish the government and those who support those governments. The majority of people who live in a fascist country do not agree with the government otherwise fascism wouldn’t be necessary.

I live in the US and I don’t agree with nor apologize for the anti-trans, anti-women, anti-immigrant, and racist policies the federal government has recently implemented. In fact many policies directly affect me and my wellbeing.

I voted against them, but unfortunately we weren’t given an option to vote for something better because of the way things work here. And many of these countries don’t even have that. Nor do I think anyone else who lives in or visits the US should be punished for the actions of its government. Same goes for any other country.

And in this case it looks like it may just be someone visited one of those countries sometime in the past, though details are scarce. I get then need to sanction people involved with the bad stuff, but people who just visit or live there with no other connection to the bad stuff is a little extreme. Especially since contributing to this project, for free, is not producing profit for or supporting any government.

I think its just that the language having built in licensing is a newer concept as opposed to just having a companion document. And MIT and Apache are the licenses the pieces of the language is licensed under, so they made those default. That way it’s a conscious decision to make it more restrictive.

I don’t think it’s Rust exactly. I think Rust is just newer and this attracts developers with less experience with licensing. It’s not really something developers want to think about very much so they often just use the default. Heck, most code on github, etc., didn’t have any licenses at all for a really long time until businesses realized they couldn’t use the code without them due to copyright laws being applied by default but patents not being default in many countries, etc.

There are consequences to using copyleft as opposed to more permissive libre licenses, and vice versa, that may not be well understood by a lot of developers in general until they get into a situation where it matters. Either their code can’t be used by people they wanted to sue it, or companies are abusing the code without proper attribution, etc.